9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 29.12.2016 for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs. 10,08,710/- on the grounds of alleged difference in receipts as per books of accounts and Form No.26AS, which is wrong contrary to the facts & evidences on record and arbitrary and the learned C.I.T.(A) NFAC has erred in maintaining the addition, which is wrong, unjustified and without appreciation of the reconciliation statement submitted. 2. That the addition of Rs. 10,08,710/- in A.Y. 2014-15 is bad in law & fact as the same has already been taxed in A.Y.2013-14. 3. That the appellant craves leave to ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5/-. However, the aforesaid explanation of the assessee did not find favor with the A.O for the following reasons: "a. The amounts mentioned in the ledger account and the amounts mentioned in the reconciliation statement and in 26AS are not matching. b. The assessee has booked income on 28/03/2013 and the date of credit mentioned against amount displayed in 26AS is 28/05/2013. i. e. after two months from the date of entry in your accounts. c. The assessee has not furnished any external evidence in support of his claim. Like confirmation of accounts or certificate from the party. d. The assessee might having the knowledge of difference in accounts at the time of finalization of accounts and at the time of audit of accounts, as accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmax Ltd. had booked the said amount on 28.05.2013, i.e., during the year under consideration A.Y.2014-15, and deducted tax at source on the same. For the sake of clarity, the claim of the assessee explaining the aforesaid deficiency before the CIT(Appeals) is culled out as follows: "Receipt of Rs. 8,38,790/- pertains to P.O.No.29102 against which the assessee has already declared receipt of Rs. 9,28,656/- in A.Y.2013-14 and the receipt of Rs. 1,72,920/- pertains to P.O.No.29010 of Thermax Ltd; Pune against which receipt of Rs. 1,92,135/- has already been declared in A.Y.2013-14. We are enclosing herewith ledger copy of Thermax Ltd; P.O.No.29012 & P.O.No.29010 and Erection and Fabrication A/c from our books of accounts for A.Y 2013-14 whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attention towards the reconciliation of the aforesaid discrepancy, Page 32 of APB, which reads as under: On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that now, when the impugned discrepancy in the receipts had duly been reconciled, and the entire amount had been offered for tax by the assessee firm, therefore, the addition made by the A.O. without appreciating the correct factual position was liable to be vacated. 9. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from the assessment order that the assessee firm had maintained its accounts as per the mercantile system of accountancy. Based on the aforesaid method of accountancy followed by the assessee firm, the accounting for the aforesaid amount of contract receipts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
